Allahabad High Court
AMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the accused pending trial.
Summary
Amar Singh was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 544 of 2025) alleging offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of the BNS Act and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and that the victim, an 18‑year‑old, had stated in a Section 183 BNSS recorded statement that she was not enticed and had voluntarily stayed with him, indicating consent. The State opposed bail, arguing the nature of the alleged offences and the applicant's marital status suggested moral turpitude. The court examined the victim’s statement, the lack of a criminal record, and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate, and found that prima facie the applicant had a case for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions, without prejudicing the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused pending trial for offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) BNS and Sections 5L/6 POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS indicating consent negates the charge of sexual exploitation.
- Whether the alleged moral turpitude arising from the accused's marital status precludes bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS Act — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 64(2)(m), 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5L, 6
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- consent
- POCSO
- moral turpitude
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1213 of 2026
Amar Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kripa Shankar Yadav, Mohammad
Qais, Neha Rani, Pawan Kumar Yadav,
Satyvendra Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chaman Aara, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.90 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the
informant has been served on 09.01.2026, but none is present on behalf of
the informant.
2. Heard Sri Satyvendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.
Chaman Aara, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee,
Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.544 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) BNS and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station
Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, has stated that
she was not enticed away by the applicant and she knew that the applicant
had two children from his earlier marriage and she stayed with the applicant
at Kanpur for a week. She has stated that now she does not want to go with
the applicant, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. It is true that
the applicant is a married person and case may fall within the purview of
moral turpitude, but there is no offence committed by the applicant. The
victim, by her appearance, seems to be major, although she is 18 years old as
BAIL No. 1213 of 2026
2
per ossification test report. The applicant has no criminal history and is in
jail since 28.10.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not
misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee and learned
A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute
the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS,
which indicates her consent, and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has
made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Amar Singh, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…